Continuation Part 11: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

Christ almighty. Just when I think your BS can't possibly get any dumber, it does.

Now it's "defamatory" to doubt malicious gossip about Amanda Knox.

Go ahead, file the papers, bring charges. We're shaking in our boots.

I am talking about people calling names and accusing Mignini, the police, Stefanoni....

...alleging blackmailing, plots, fabricating evidence, being responsible of murders, orchestrating mafia defamatory campaign, suppressing laboratory results, perjuring, being corrupt, committing abuses...

 

[Diocletus]

I am talking about people calling names and accusing Mignini, the police, Stefanoni....

Oh, you mean like stefanoni suppressing 100+ profiles? We already assembled all of the available information on that and built a compelling and overwhelming case. She's a fraud.

 

[Machiavelli]

You think it is cult to demand evidence? Mach's statement is a total falsehood...yet you salute it like it was etched on tablets for Moses.

Total falsehood that Luciano, Lorenzo, Federico were caught and tried as a consequence of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox?

Really? And how do you know that Umbra24? La Nazione, Il Giornale dell'Umbria are making up a false story?
Did you check their attorneys? How did you discover that?

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, you mean like stefanoni suppressing 100+ profiles? We already assembled all of the available information on that and built a compelling and overwhelming case. She's a fraud.

Oh yes. So you are bringing it to court. I am happy if true, I have been urging those accusers to bring their case into court, and they always bulked. What's the date of your legal complaint?

 

[MichaelB]

The story about the Perugian police calling the Milan police regarding Guede and they then released him and even put him on a train back to Perugia is crap. I've never seen any evidence of that at all. I don't even know where it originates.

Another one that pops up occasionally is he even got to keep the stolen computer and phone.

 

[Kauffer]

The fact that a rapist and murderer (possibly with a foreign passport) is at large is not a threat to public safety?
Than also, you may notice that the treatment of Amanda Knox was in fact different, because her questioning was actually halted.
Amanda Knox was not questioned after she started to incriminate herself, and was nit questioned while art. 104 was applied.

Well, if you wish to argue that rapists and murderers possibly with foreign passports represent such an exigent threat to public safety that nobody gets a lawyer in these cases....which is absurd, go ahead and argue...no one will listen to you except Vibio.

The bit you can't get is that whether or not an emergency exception applied, nothing from anything she says without benefit of counsel can be used against her - nothing. So before you jump again to your stabbing analogy - No, this is not the same as saying that if Ms Knox had stabbed Ficcara at her interrogation she would be protected. It's different.

All this we know. But the art 104 stuff is now interesting. Tell us about that. That's at the discretion of the investigating judge, isn't it? Where is the proof that these powers were the subject of a petition from the prosecutor to the investigating judge in either case? Where is the proof that the isolation of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito until the Matteini hearings was legal and a privilege properly granted to Mignini? When were art 104 powers granted? Where is this to be referenced?

 

[Diocletus]

Oh yes. So you are bringing it to court. I am happy if true, I have been urging those accusers to bring their case into court, and they always bulked. What's the date of your legal complaint?

I have a better idea. I'll write up some questions for stefanoni, and you can translate them and send them on to her. Then, we'll see what she says. Deal?

 

[Numbers]

More like the wrong Americans. . . .Amanda Knox and Mario Lozano for example.
The pilots with the Cavalese cable car disaster deserve action as well as CIA and military personel related to the Abu Omar kidnapping.

Details of these incidents can be found in Wikipedia.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_(1998)

A Marine E-6B flying too low (about 350 feet or less), against regulations (minimum 2000 feet), clipped the cables of a cable car near Cavalese. Twenty cable-car passengers died. In accordance with a status of forces agreement, the crew was tried by a military court in the US for manslaughter. They were acquitted. It then been known that the pilot had destroyed the plane's video tape of the flight. He was then convicted of obstruction of justice and served four months of a six-month sentence. The US government apologized and paid compensation. In my opinion, the pilot was not held to the proper accountability for operating the plane contrary to regulations, which led to the collision.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

American CIA operatives, on Feb. 17, 2003, in collaboration with an Italian government intelligence agency, abducted in Milan and transferred to Egypt the Imam of Milan Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar. This "extraordinary rendition" was conducted as part of the "War on Terror" after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the US.

The Italian courts tried the former director and deputy director of the Italian Military Intelligence and Security Service (SISMI) and, in abscentia, a number of CIA operatives. On February 12, 2013, the Court of Appeal in Milano sentenced former SISMI director Nicolò Pollari, his deputy director Marco Mancini, former Rome CIA station chief Castelli and two other CIA employees to up to 10 years in jail. Pollari has announced he will appeal against this ruling at the Corte Suprema di Cassazione. On February 24, 2014, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, following a sentence of the Italian Corte Costituzionale regarding the use of secreted evidence in the proceedings, acquitted Pollari and Mancini.

Issues brought up in the Italian investigation of this case included alleged illegal surveillance of Italians, including Italian magistrates unfriendly to the Berlusconi administration, by the SISMI or one of its divisions.
______

Neither of the above cases have any legal relationship to the case of Amanda Knox.

 

[anglolawyer]

The fact that a rapist and murderer (possibly with a foreign passport) is at large is not a threat to public safety?
Than also, you may notice that the treatment of Amanda Knox was in fact different, because her questioning was actually halted.
Amanda Knox was not questioned after she started to incriminate herself, and was nit questioned while art. 104 was applied.

Excuse me, Mach, but you have forgotten the reasoned justification for the use of art. 104. Where is that please? It's referred to in the article as a requirement of the article itself and I highlighted it yesterday. Please don't run away and ignore my question about it. If you are saying article 104 kicked in after 1.45 a.m. on 6th November there must be a reasoned, written decision. If there isn't (I bet a million lira there isn't) then you are simply wrong and must fall on your sword on this one.

You are also wrong about the halting of the questioning. It continued up to the point when she signed the 1.45 document. She should have been afforded legal assistance at the very latest (in fact, we say much earlier) as soon as she placed herself at the scene ('I see Patrick!' somewhere around there) or declared a terrorist or mafiosi and treated as if article 104 applied.

 

[anglolawyer]

I am talking about people calling names and accusing Mignini, the police, Stefanoni....

...alleging blackmailing, plots, fabricating evidence, being responsible of murders, orchestrating mafia defamatory campaign, suppressing laboratory results, perjuring, being corrupt, committing abuses...

This is a useful, handy list of their infractions! Thank you Machiavelli!

 

[Desert Fox]

The story about the Perugian police calling the Milan police regarding Guede and they then released him and even put him on a train back to Perugia is crap. I've never seen any evidence of that at all. I don't even know where it originates.

Another one that pops up occasionally is he even got to keep the stolen computer and phone.

http://groundreport.com/5088798/
OCTOBER 28, SUNDAY

Mid-morning
Someone in Perugia authorizes the Milanese police to let Guede go and he is put on a train back to Perugia with the stolen cell phone and laptop from the Brocchi robbery. After his return to Perugia, Guede asked an unidentified student for money, but is politely refused. Raffaele and Amanda take a trip to Assisi, the “spiritual home” of Francis of Assisi and have a wonderful time strolling around the piazza and visiting St. Francis’s tomb. Marco Marzan, from downstairs, leaves for Porto San Giorgio to spend the All Saints Day and All Souls Day holiday weekend with his family, it’s the last time he sees Meredith alive. (2007 Rudy Guede testimony) (2009 Marco Marzan testimony) (2009 Amanda Knox testimony) (2012 HB) (2013 WTBH)

 

[Dan O.]

I am talking about people calling names and accusing Mignini, the police, Stefanoni....

...alleging blackmailing, plots, fabricating evidence, being responsible of murders, orchestrating mafia defamatory campaign, suppressing laboratory results, perjuring, being corrupt, committing abuses...

Machiavelli, who entered the cottage on the night of November 13, 2007 for the purpose of applying Luminol? Who went back after the morning of November 14 to relock the door with the key and retape the seal?

 

[Numbers]

NOBODY from Perugia freed Gued from the Milan incident, but in fictional stories by Preston or Sollecito.
Nobody is detained on the charge of having stolen good. The theft of a knife would be an even smaller offence, and is not prosecuted unless the owner of the knife submits a formal complaint (a ludicrous complaint) and the defendant would be acquitted, since didn't actually steal the knife.
There is zero charge - absolute zero - fro which one would need to be "freed". Nobody actually goes to prison for those accusations. Even less cautionary custody!

This is a spectacular assertion.
One cannot go to prison in Italy for the crime of burglary and stealing, but one can go to prison for many years for the "crime" of "calunnia" when the "calunnia" is the result of a coercive police interrogation, and the "calunnia" is forcibly suggested by the police. [Calunnia may be defined as a false accusation to authorities against another person.]

 

[carbonjam72]

A staged, staged, break-in, Italian style.

Hi Carbonjam72,
Don't forget to add to your Rudy in the Nursery School file that he said to call the police!

And if I recall correctly, (err, I think I do), Rudy Guede was also in possession of stolen keys when the cops searched him at the school.

I think it was Grinder or Acbytesla who wondered how did the cops know they were stolen, did they have a Masserati key on 'em or somethin'?

Here's part of the quote, I posted it again the other day:
However then in the morning I saw this lady and a child and some men, I explained everything to the lady, how things had happened, and I said to the lady to call the Police. Then the Police came who then seized my cell phone and computer.
Napoleoni: Was the cell phone yours Rudy?
* * *

Weird how Rudy said to call the cops, no?

All great detail you're filling in here, I'm pretty sure I had heard these before, but it gets confusing as to where everything comes from, trial, books, articles, etc.

But your find in the spanish articles above is really interesting. Could it possibly be the article is written poorly, or is it actually an account that the day after the kercher killing the police were already cordoning off Rudy's apartment? Did I misread that?

I'll bet those spanish kids are not too hard to contact to clarify, and they are outside the control (and threats) of the Italian police. That would really put a nial in the idea that the cops recognized Rudy might be involved from DAY 1, just from the style of B&E. And that all the excuses of a staged break-in are, ahem, "staged".

Yes, we may well have a "staged, staged break-in".

 

[Desert Fox]

Neither of the above cases have any legal relationship to the case of Amanda Knox.

I agree but I think Italy feels a certain impotence when dealing with the United States and it was a case where they saw themselves able to get even with an American in this case.

 

[Numbers]

Total falsehood that Luciano, Lorenzo, Federico were caught and tried as a consequence of their phone contacts with Amanda Knox?

Really? And how do you know that Umbra24? La Nazione, Il Giornale dell'Umbria are making up a false story?
Did you check their attorneys? How did you discover that?

Oh yes. So you are bringing it to court. I am happy if true, I have been urging those accusers to bring their case into court, and they always bulked. What's the date of your legal complaint?

Once more you are asking for evidence but not providing it.

The Knox-Sollecito defense has shown in public (MMK site) that they did not receive evidence they should have received for "equality of arms".

Show us that what you are saying about drug dealers is not a hoax. Actual court documents are required. Newspaper reports are not reliable enough.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, if you wish to argue that rapists and murderers possibly with foreign passports represent such an exigent threat to public safety that nobody gets a lawyer in these cases....which is absurd, go ahead and argue...no one will listen to you except Vibio.

The bit you can't get is that whether or not an emergency exception applied, nothing from anything she says without benefit of counsel can be used against her - nothing. So before you jump again to your stabbing analogy - No, this is not the same as saying that if Ms Knox had stabbed Ficcara at her interrogation she would be protected. It's different.

All this we know. But the art 104 stuff is now interesting. Tell us about that. That's at the discretion of the investigating judge, isn't it? Where is the proof that these powers were the subject of a petition from the prosecutor to the investigating judge in either case? Where is the proof that the isolation of Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito until the Matteini hearings was legal and a privilege properly granted to Mignini? When were art 104 powers granted? Where is this to be referenced?

No, art. 104 is at the discretion of prosecution for 48 hours, with no requirement to obtain a privilege from the judge, then the orders after time expiration decays. The Investigating Judge may also establish it, withdraw it or uphold it and prolong it for up to son days.
The proof that denial of counsel is legal consists in the words of judge Matteini.
That exceptional circumstances mean terrorism threat is false, as for Italian jurisprudence and for ECHR.
That there was an emergency interrogation of Knox is also false; the interrogation was halted. Art. 104 was applied from 8.30am of the 6th, but Knox was not interrogated in the meanwhile.
In addition to this and severs other things, indeed I do maintain my stabbing analogy, since this is something at the core of the legal issue. Knox has been convicted of a crime, calunnia, for which she was nor being suspected nor investigated, and that had nothing to do with her questioning and detention. This crime was only discovered subsequently. There are several kind of crimes that may be committed through declarations, for example: Snowden; charges like espionage, high treason, leakage of state secrets, release of false ID info etc., are all kind of crimes that won't be protected by a defendant privilege just because they are committed during a period of police custody.

 

[MichaelB]

http://groundreport.com/5088798/
OCTOBER 28, SUNDAY

Mid-morning
Someone in Perugia authorizes the Milanese police to let Guede go and he is put on a train back to Perugia with the stolen cell phone and laptop from the Brocchi robbery. After his return to Perugia, Guede asked an unidentified student for money, but is politely refused. Raffaele and Amanda take a trip to Assisi, the “spiritual home” of Francis of Assisi and have a wonderful time strolling around the piazza and visiting St. Francis’s tomb. Marco Marzan, from downstairs, leaves for Porto San Giorgio to spend the All Saints Day and All Souls Day holiday weekend with his family, it’s the last time he sees Meredith alive. (2007 Rudy Guede testimony) (2009 Marco Marzan testimony) (2009 Amanda Knox testimony) (2012 HB) (2013 WTBH)

Thanks. That's not where it originates because that was done in August yet this story has been around for years. It's not true. It doesn't exist in the court docs or any of the Italian media articles.

 

[carbonjam72]

There should exist a quality photo of the print and the reference print that the police made the comparison to. Since we don't have those I can only presume that they were sealed along with the rest of the evidence and transcripts from Rudy's trial.

What we do have are the photos of the whole pillow. Several in the room and the front and back of the case alone. In these photos we can see a mark that is very likely a partial palm print on the center of the right edge of the pillow as viewed when entering the room.

if you look at the palm of your hand you will see the obvious crease lines. Some of these are visible in the apparent palm print. But I don't believe there is enough information available to automatically ID a suspect. If you look closer, there are also friction ridges on the palms just like the fingers. These would contain plenty of identifying information for a computer search to pick out the suspect I'd they could be resolved in the print. The technology to do this from a print on fabrick does exist today but not in 2007.

There was also a minor note perhaps in Perugia-shock that mentions an officer comming from Rome or Milan and bringing Rudy's identity card with the reference print for comparison. This is what settles for me that the print was used to confirm it was Rudy's and not to identify Rudy.

Could there have been a data match from the computer systems, that they then wanted to confirm manually?

 

[Numbers]

The fact that a rapist and murderer (possibly with a foreign passport) is at large is not a threat to public safety?
Than also, you may notice that the treatment of Amanda Knox was in fact different, because her questioning was actually halted.
Amanda Knox was not questioned after she started to incriminate herself, and was nit questioned while art. 104 was applied.

Is this the start of your essay about application of common law precedence to ECHR judgments about violations of Convention Article 6.3c (right to legal counsel from lawyer) and Article 6.1 (right to a fair trial)?

Perhaps you should have some additional background to start.
For example, how was CCP Article 104 applied? Where is the reasoned motivation from the prosecutor that allows article 104 to be invoked?

How does the questioning that demands someone incriminate herself or others relate to the questioning of a "safety interview" which relates to locating dangerous explosives or similar materials, or locating known terrorists?

Please don't hesitate to use as many words as you wish to make your points.